For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

We have previously supported Pat Brown who defends neglect which is something we don’t think ever happened. However, Brown’s negligence links the McCanns to Maddie’s death and that is enough for us to see the ball starting to roll.

So, this next bit is what we want to highlight

We are in support of any result that identifies, or helps identify, what happened to M - how she died, if not where she was finally interred or cremated.

Indeed. At the end of the day the one thing which should unite people regardless of their position is an answer to the question "What happened to Madeleine?"However, in the very next breath........

We don’t support any result if it says taken by an intruder.

And this is where the problem arises.It is one thing to express a personal belief about what happened to Madeleine - we all do that - and many people, myself included, do not believe she was taken by some random intruder. There is, however, a world of difference between having an opinion and rejecting a conclusion because it is not what you want to hear

And if we are proven wrong, that it wasn’t all because of hiding swinging, we will be the first to recognise being wrong. We pursue the truth, we don’t pursue being right.

What bollocks. Your ludicrous theory has been debunked many times and on each occasion you merely move the goalposts - "the other guests were involved, the ex-pats were involved, the table didn't exist" There is no suggestion so ludicrous that you would hesitate to use it to defend your indefensible position

By supporting the message conveyed in his last post, doesn’t mean we support what Blacksmith as said over the years. That would be difficult, if for no other reason, he keeps deleting posts so we can’t confront what he is saying today with what he has said in the past.

Allow me to help - he thinks you are a loon.

We are supporting this particular post, one where he says he’s certain (only he knows on what he basis this assessment) that Operation Grange is going to produce a result.

That, we unquestionably support. We do NOT support Operation Grange closing without any palpable result.

Really? Would you like to state the obvious a bit fucking louder, lamebrain? I think it's obvious that everyone except the perpetrators is hoping for that.

About what will be our opinion on said result, we will have to see what it is first.

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

For the second time, the blog is going to speak about a current VERY controversial thing: the Skripal poisoning.

For no apparent reason on God's green one

The first time was to give our opinion about how we feel that the Maddie case has contributed to the general mistrust that the citizens have for what they are told by their government and the nation’s intelligence service.

ie, nothing

As we said then, we will keep our opinion about the Skripal subject to ourselves.

Which is why you are blogging about it again

What we would like to note is the Portuguese position on this issue.

Irrelevant of being true or not, it’s a fact that the UK government accuses Russia for that poisoning.

It’s also a fact that the various members of the EU have aligned themselves with the UK government and have expelled Russians diplomats from their territory. NATO and Trump’s US have taken a similar attitude.

What about Portugal?

It hasn’t expelled anyone. It says it’s watching and has noted the Skripal poisoning.

Again, we are not judging whether those being expelled are rightfully being so, nor saying that Portugal should or not expel Russian diplomats.

We are just highlighting that Portugal is not aligning with the UK on this very sensitive and controversial subject even after various EU members, the US and NATO having done so.

Neither has Malta. Or Bulgaria. Or Slovakia, Or Austria. Or Switzerland. Or Cyprus.......

Please make the appropriate transfer of this to the Maddie case.

There isn't one.

We are NOT taking any comment about the Skripal case as we have no intention to invite any debate on this subject, we just want for this non-alignment between Portugal and the UK to be noted.

Okay. Now talk about the non-alignment of the other nations and how it's all about Maddie. Stupid cow.This is what the Portuguese ministry has actually said:

The Portuguese foreign ministry said this week that it "believes the coordination at the European level is the most effective means to respond to the gravity of the current situation".

It is understood that the number of Russian diplomats based in Portugal is very small and that the Portuguese could not find a security-related reason to expel any

Saturday, 24 March 2018

Evening allYou are fortunate to join us at this historic moment when one lunatic conspiracy theorist in the lumpen shape of Textusa argues the toss with another in the looming shape of Baldylocks.Sadly, it may mean that it becomes utterly confusing as half the time even I haven't got a fucking clue who is talking.We'll get through it guys. We've been through worse......

The pool photo

Warning - this post may contain bizarre claims about vertical lines. Please do not read on if you are likely to be affected by this, or you've got epilepsy or some shit

1. Introduction

The relevance of the so-called Pool Photo, best known as the Last Photo, has emerged again, with a theory sent to the Attorney General of Portugal by CMoMM group, authored by Peter McCleod, known in the Maddie internet world as PeterMac.

It was authored by Bonkers Bennett, dear.

In terms of authorship, even though it’s said that it was from a group of unnamed researchers both British and Portuguese, the only other name that has appeared is that of Paulo Reis, although it’s uncertain if he was a researcher/translator or just a translator.

The article that caused the Last Photo to emerge again did not meet the expected impact or relevance its authors hoped it would have by far. For them it must be a huge disappointment.

I dare say they are. But it's had more impact than your demented theory, so that probably makes up for it

Without entering into the full details about what has been written,

Thank fuck

one of the main planks of the theory is that this photo is genuine, but the date of May 3 2007 in the EXIF data has been altered. It is claimed the weather conditions on the day were inconsistent with the sunny day depicted in the photograph and that it was taken much earlier in the week. The stated intention is that the McCanns wanted to demonstrate that Madeleine was still alive in the early afternoon of May 3 when she had, in fact, died earlier in the week.

That, we hope, is a fair summary of that particular aspect of the theory.

Yes, that's about the size of it. For once.

2. Expert support

It is said to be supported by 2 expert witnesses, one of whom we are presuming to be Professor Hany Farid of Dartmouth College in the USA. We say presumably, as he was quoted on the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann (CMOMM) Forum as one of the people who had given an opinion and verified that the photograph had not been photo-shopped. However, we accept that other experts may have been consulted since.

This is what was written at the time on the CMOMM forum – November 2015:

6 “ A top photographic expert, professor Hany Farid, carried out forensic evidence on the photo and found no evidence of photo-shopping and furthermore that all the shadows in the Last Photo were absolutely consistent throughout the photo.

7 Another top expert reached similar conclusions.”

Please note that the words “found no evidence of photo-shopping and furthermore that all the shadows in the Last Photo were absolutely consistent throughout the photo” do not come from any photographic expert but are from the forum.

Well, they are claiming that those were his conclusions. Are you saying that he was wrong?

The unnamed top expert has never been named, to our knowledge,

That's what happens when people are unnamed. I could draw you a diagram if that would help

but from what was written on the forum, we would hazard a guess it could refer to Darren Ware, who produced his own re-enactment of the pool photo.

Might be, might not. You have no way of knowing

It’s possible to be Darren Ware as this was said on the CMOMM Forum:

Textusa likes to include these screenshots and then transcribe every word underneath, the pointless idiot

“on 08.11.15 20:33 by Get'emGoncalo

Get'emGonGalo wrote:

@HelenMeg wrote:

Many of us, it is clear, believe the Last Photo is a 'fake' regardless of being scorned and told in no uncertain terms that we are 'wrong'. So we should simply agree to differ. We are told we are wrong because two experts' said they believed it was not photoshopped. Are we supposed to say' OK then'. I dont think so!!

Helenmeg was your idiot sidekick and the woman was crazy stupid.

So why scorn the McCanns for saying the expert dogs are notoriously unreliable?

Who is saying this bit now? I have no idea

Just to add a bit more to this post – I’ve asked PeterMac about his two experts and he said that one of them is the son of one of his visitors and “is a professional “photoshopper”. Peter said: “He lead the team which did the advert some years ago, where paint squirted down the side of a factory in Manchester, and a car popped out at the bottom.

I assume this is Textusa speaking again, but who the fuck knows?

It was real paint, and a real factory due for demolition. One take.

Their job was to take the film, and then to take OUT every gantry, crane, hose, nozzle ... making it look as though the paint was just squirting out from nowhere.

They are paid a LOT of money for doing it. And this is a short FILM, not a single photo image.”

One expert is named and the other all we know is that he’s “the son of one of his visitors and “is a professional “photoshopper”. Peter said: “He lead the team which did the advert some years ago, where paint squirted down the side of a factory in Manchester, and a car popped out at the bottom.”

You already said that. It's literally two inches above. I know your readers have a short attention span, but seriously?

This is the quote from 1st EXPERT Professor Harry (sic) Farid

“I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts as described here (link to his blogspot) If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent-they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image’s metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon

Regards,

Professor Farid”

Well, that seems to tie in with the claim that he said he found no evidence of tampering. So there you go.

We note important words “initial look” and “at first glance” as hardly being conclusive evidence.

Yes they are. There is so obviously nothing wrong with it that it does not require further analysis. If someone bangs their leg but there is no swelling, redness, pain or loss of movement then you do not send them for an MRI

However, to give the benefit of the doubt, we are also presuming Professor Farid was invited to give the photograph more than an initial look and first glance before the letter was submitted to Portugal.

As for Darren Ware’s video, minus the employment of his child as a model, we doubt if that would be classed as expert evidence and make another presumption that a second expert witness was consulted, in order to have any credibility with the Portuguese Attorney General.

The only person who has suggested it is him is you. It might well be, the Bennett expert witness line-up is full of non-expert headcases, but you don't actually know, do you?

Darren Ware was unable to explain the curved reflections on the sunglasses he used on his video attempting to prove that a curved line could produce a vertical reflection on the lens of a sunglasses and said that their convexity was both unimportant (when convenient to ‘prove’ the vertical reflection) and important (when to ‘prove’ why the photographer didn’t appear reflected).

But he cannot be the second expert. Mr Anthony Bennett has said this recently:

“Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos

Now that Darren Ware has shown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ZhyjTG3SU … (131,000 views so far) that the vertical line on Gerry #McCann's sunglasses is natural & experts have ruled out photoshopping, the choice for the 'Last Photo' is this >> Taken on SUNNY Sunday? Or on CLOUDY Thursday lunchtime?

Mr Bennett was, we believe, was part of the process involving contacts between the CMOMM and the photographic experts, so by saying “Darren Ware (…) & experts (plural)” he’s separating Darren Ware from them.

So it isn't him. So what the fuck was all that musing in aid of?

As a side note, it was interesting to see the support shown by K9 to the Ware video:

“Canine Truth@K9Truth

Replying to @zampos and @CarlaSpade

Yes, that's a very important video that debunks the "physics"-based theory about photoshopped glasses. The main Q is whether Gerry really did buy these sunglasses on Tuesday May 1st. #McCann

A side note inserted from pure spite and vindictiveness, it would seem

K9, we remind readers, is the self-proclaimed Gaspars’ statements expert who was unable to answer basic questions about the… Gaspars’ statements. One amazing feat K9 was able to achieve, which went unnoticed by most but not by us, was during the debate to resurrect Walkercan1000 for a brief tweeting period of 4H40 after 12 days and 15 hours of silence and then going back immediately to hibernation, where he has now been for 11 days and 09 hours.

And unsurprisingly K9 is someone who gives credibility to Simon Foy, Mark Rowley and Colin Sutton:

“Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth

Replying to @Heavy_Dave

As Foy, Rowley + Sutton have all confirmed, Op Grange has no intention of getting anywhere near the truth. Scotland Yard's flagrant/shameless abuse of public funds + its position of authority are now a threat to national security (ie likely 2 incite riots). #McCann #StopTheCircus

I thought you were supposed to be discussing the pool photo, not embarking on yet another of your Stalkathons?

Shouldn’t someone who is literally obsessed with crimes of paedophilia in the UK and Ireland, and truly believing that Maddie is a case of paedophilia, want Operation Grange to continue?

It seems that is not his wish. He wants Operation Grange shut down. He doesn’t want the unknown powerful and protected British paedo who he says killed Maddie to be known and face justice.

Nothing to do with the pool photo. Get on with it

Does anyone still doubt on which side of the fence K9 sits? What an insult and total disrespect for all the real victims of paedophilia referred to in the articles that this man has posted.

That is simply a spiteful, personal attack on someone who was only ever polite to you, but who you have viciously targeted ever since they agreed with me

Operation Grange continuing is likely to incite riots? Really? What on earth is K9 talking about? What riots? That’s a new one and something that not even Sutton has remembered to say and we know he’s a man able to state something and its opposite almost in the same breath.

Our replication of the pool photo, above, which we put on our “Non-post” post was dismissed as the pool was not of similar size, the sunglasses are of the wrong type and the photographer is in the wrong position.

Yes, it was complete bollocks

About the size of the pool, I have the privilege to be the only person that has knowingly been present in both the kid’s pool of hotel where team met and the Tapas kid’s pool.

Having now been present, I was surprised. The Tapas kid’s pool seemed much smaller. But photos don’t lie and we trust the scale of Google Earth.

This was a picture taken there. In the pool a young girl who I estimated to be 5-7 yrs old, about 4 ft /1.20 cm tall.

We invite readers to try our experiment for themselves, using a circular pool of similar circumference and any sunglasses they have, with the photographer at different positions, to see what results they obtain.

Oh here we go again - another excuse to trot out a load of complete bollocks about ''physics'', not a word of which she understands

Nowhere in this universe – and we cannot speak for other universes (our humble homage to Prof Hawkings, RIP GREAT man)

It's HAWKING, you fucking moron.

– can anyone sitting on the side of that small pool wearing sunglasses produce a vertical reflection on its lenses of the side of the pool.

To be clear, we do not consider ourselves to be experts on photo-shopping

Good, because you're not

and give our opinions on other aspects of the photo in that capacity, restricting our strong view as to the physical impossibility of the reflection in the sunglasses worn by Gerry McCann.

And you know nothing about physics either

A pig can’t fly and, in those circumstances, there can’t also be a vertical reflection on Gerry’s sunglasses.

Sorry?

If one sees a pig flying it’s because he has been fired from a cannon, and if there’s a vertical reflection on Gerry McCann’s sunglasses, as there is, it can only be because someone “fired” that reflection into them.

Sorry?

Nothing to do with lighting and shadows. Simple and pure physics.

You are fucking clueless

4. False positives and negatives

Even if one ignores when one shouldn’t the “initial look” and “at first glance”, and holds on for dear life to the words “I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent-they are”, we remind you that the word “consistent” isn’t conclusive wording. It’s like the dog signalling, it needs further proof.

You have no idea what you are talking about. He was asked to look for evidence of tampering. The lighting and shadows are consistent, therefore no evidence of tampering

Let’s look at an interesting question that was put to Professor Farid.

The research in my lab for the past 15 years has focused on developing techniques for detecting photo tampering. I am co-founder of Fourandsix Technologies and the new website izitru.com. Ask me anything related to image forensics, our work on photoDNA, our photo authentication site izitru.com, or anything else that you’d like.

Thanks guys for the good questions, and good luck to you during your studies and pursuits.”

This is one of the questions and the professor’s answer to it:

“Mechroid Feb 6, 2014, 12:56 PM

Have you encountered any photos that pass all the tests, but you suspect is tampered with? What do you do to reduce the rate of false negatives?

HanyFarid Feb 6, 2014, 1:04 PM

The izitru site is new, so we don't have a big track record yet. That's one of the reasons we're introducing it to the reddit community now. We've designed our tests to be fairly conservative, so false negatives (an unmodified imaged tagged as “Undetermined") will be more common than false positives (a modified image tagged as “High Trust"). That said, there will undoubtedly be some false positives, which is why we include the Challenge button on the site. If we see many challenges on an image, we'll take a closer look and apply some of our more specialized, less automated testing techniques.”

There are “false positives” and “false negatives”.

So, saying that things are “consistent” after saying “initial look” or “first glance” can hardly be considered as solid evidence as some obsessively would like to have us believe.

I am quite sure if you asked him ''Have the images of Gerry and Amelie been dropped in at a later date" he would say ''no'' and then piss himself laughing

According to the CMOMM forum, PeterMac contacted Prof Farid in 2014, so after the above stated:

All perfectly legible. But Textusa will transcribe it anyway because the post is only 35 fucking feet long

“Textusa’s opinion is contrary to the clear opinions of two proven experts in digital photography whom PeteMac consulted last year. They both pronounced it a genuine photo, but possibly had the date and time data altered.

A majority on the ‘Last Photo’ threads here seemed persuaded from the evidence put forward by PeterMac and others, mostly about the weather conditions that week, that there was a good case for the photo having been a genuine taken on the Sunday, or possibly Monday. But some did not agree.

So for an update on what members now think about the ‘Last Photo’, I've added another poll

Last edited by Tony Bennett on 06.11.15 13:21; edited 1 time in total”

Oh get on with it

Prof. Farid seems to be a controversial figure in the world of photographic analysis, as per following tweets, from someone who usually disagrees strongly with us:

“Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19

Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16

Hany Farid. More of him on the link. The other one doesn't exist and as for that nonsense from Darren Ware trying to replicate everything in his living room using a mannequin with a pair a shades stuck on, then Jesus Christ!!! #McCann

Yes, I do! I also know that the named "expert" is as dodgy as they come & the other one cannot be named under any circumstances! My own eyes tell me it's photoshopped. I've discussed this for years with knowledgeable folk who also believe its fake! Thats my opinion. Soz! #McCann

I don't go along with everything Textusa says but I think their analysis on the LP is very accurate! To try & fit 5 years of 'discussion' on it in a few tweets is hardly a cop out! I think it's photoshopped & U think it's genuine! Fair enough! No problem with that! #McCann

So you are now harvesting opinion from some random on the net? Yes, that's a good idea, blow those professors out of the water

4. Shadows and lighting

One other strong pillar of this theory is that it was impossible for the photo to have been taken on Thursday because it wasn’t sunny.

As to the weather conditions in Praia da Luz that afternoon, we have no quarrel with the data on weather conditions PeterMac has obtained for May 3, as our argument is not related to the photograph being taken on that day. Indeed, we agree with Professor Farid’s last paragraph and with PeterMac that is wasn’t taken on May 3.

But PeterMac has one strong opposer to this claim and that is himself.

On his blog, where he has an online book about the case, on Chapter 15, PeterMac has this photo to illustrate what was the weather on May 3:

Finally, Textusa had found a rock big enough to spare her blushes while she changed into her swimmies

As can be seen, lots of blue in between clouds. The Last Photo could have been taken when the sun was between the wide spaces between the clouds.

The weather data used by Baldy and the Coots is, in effect, a false sample. It was taken primarily from a weather station 50 miles away. A nearby one painted an entirely different picture, with many hours of sunshine on the day in question

About that it’s impossible to photoshop or airbrush shadows, one must wonder in what world does anyone stating that live in. It’s common knowledge that the majority of, if not all, magazines that want to highlight the beauty of people to boost their sales have tampered with the images of those they have had on the covers, as well as the pictures shown inside in the articles.

What?

Besides, getting the right shadows and right lighting all one needed to know was at what time the photo of Maddie on her own was taken, and take the one of Gerry and Amelie at approximately the same time of day and that is neither difficult nor complex to achieve. After all, those who believe that the photo was taken on Sunday at noon, have to allow for a window of time because that photo is supposed to have been taken, according to them, when Maddie is supposed to have been seen by the only witness they say is credible without explaining why over others, in building 5A.

Note, we repeat that we don’t believe that any of the 3 photos that were used to compose the Last Photo were taken on May 3. Just showing that the arguments presented by some to contradict this lack substance.

Both the lighting and the weather arguments to justify the picture was not taken on May 3 are ridiculous and as can be seen, easily disproven.

As are your even more ludicrous claims that it was taken weeks later

Holding on to the weather/lighting and untampered shadows to prove the Last Photo was not taken on May 3 is like having a ping-pong ball and a toothpick to cross the Atlantic. The ball floats but is not a boat and the toothpick is made out of wood but is not an oar.

5. Possible date

Don't ask. Just don't ask.

As we explained in our “Non-post” we believe that the Last Photo is a result of a composite of 3 other photos: #1, of Madeleine alone, #2 of Gerry and Amelie sitting by the pool nearby where Maddie had been photographed alone and #3, of Gerry’s sunglasses which on the original photo were hanging on the neckline of his T-shirt and were later superimposed on his face to avoid showing that the photographer was not Kate McCann, as the photographer appeared reflected on the original photo #2.

Your theory is utter, utter wank.

We DON’T KNOW when any of those 3 photos were taken. Anyone saying that we have is intellectually dishonest.

What we say is that photos #2 and #3 were taken after Maddie died and probably both in the same session.

We originally thought the photo session which we believe originated photos #2 and #3 were taken on May 19, but now believe it could have been taken as early as May 12, on the day Madeleine would have been 4.

We have no reason to alter our opinion that the purpose of the photograph was to show a happy Madeleine with her family, given the dearth of such photos to that point.

You based your 'theory' on the fact that there were other dates on which Gerry and Amelie were wearing the same clothing. It may have escaped your attention, Poirot, but people going for a week's holiday generally take enough clothes for a week, so that fact that they made a repeat appearance is hardly fucking surprising

The playground photo where Gerry is playing with the children didn’t meet requirements of a photogenic shot as Madeleine’s face isn’t visible. It’s because its importance was only seen as a publicity shot that no great care was taken, other than to disguise the fact that the photographer using Kate’s camera was not Kate. Gerry was wearing sunglasses when the photo was taken, so sunglasses had to be replaced on the face in the pool photo.

The timing of the photo could be whatever the person altering the EXIF data wanted it to be, consistent with the time it was actually taken, if not the date.

Cobblers

To be equally clear, we do NOT believe it was taken to prove Madeleine was alive on May 3, although we agree that she certainly wasn’t at the time this photograph was composed.

There now follows a rambling bit about Madeleine's 4th Birthday, for no apparent reason on god's green one

The only account we have of Madeleine’s fourth birthday celebrations early on the day of May 12th comes from Kate’s book (pages 127-8):

“Saturday 12 May 2007: Madeleine’s fourth birthday…. We should have been at home, where we’d arranged a joint party in Leicester for Madeleine and two of her classmates at nursery……

John Hill had arranged for us all- Gerry, Sean, Amelie and myself, Trish+ and Sandy, and Fiona, David, Dianne, Jane and Russell, Matt and Rachael and their kids- to spend the day at a private villa

(Nicky left that weekend and Michael popped home for a couple of days)”

Nicky is Kate’s childhood friend and Michael is Michael Wright, Kate’s relative by marriage to her cousin.

“it was good to be away from the Ocean Club and the media circus, and the kids enjoyed themselves, playing in and around the pool with floats and toys……. The Mark Warner staff had brought over stacks of food for us. The men organised a barbeque and there was wine and beer…”

After attending a special Mass for her at the church early in the evening we were visited in the apartment by Cat, Madeleine’s nanny at Mini Club. She had some news for us: she and some of her colleagues were being sent to another Mark Warner resort in Greece. None of them wanted to leave, and to this day we do not fully understand this decision.”

Interesting to note that Kate wants us to believe that on that special day they didn’t spend it inside the Ocean Club but in an unnamed villa.

What does any of that have to do with the pool photo?

Having been inside the Tapas area and seeing how still to this day the access to it is restricted, we find it strange for the need of a villa for the kids to be able to enjoy “themselves, playing in and around the pool with floats and toys” as that could well be done in that area. The media circus was NOT inside the Tapas area and if a paparazzi wanted to photograph that party, s/he would have followed the family and invaded their privacy nonetheless.

By then, the McCanns enjoyed a VIP status big enough to restrict the access only to guests – and maybe not even to them on that day and they could have been directed to use the Millenium pool instead – the Tapas area for only the McCanns to use. The huge wave of public sympathy then generated for the McCanns would make the other guests understand and support such a generous gesture by the Ocean Club to the couple.

But they chose to use a villa arranged by John Hill, an important character in this saga. With food supplied by Mark Warner staff.

There is no indication in the book as to whom the villa belonged. John Geraghty was helping them at this point, so maybe he gave them the use of his villa and pool, or it may have been an empty villa for rental. Clement Freud’s property also occurred to us, but only those who arranged it or attended have the answer to this possibility. As well as Operation Grange maybe?

More bonkers and pointless speculation

Why do we think May 12 could have been the day Gerry was photographed and the photo used for the Pool Photo?

Ah, at last....

The photographs taken from here, on their return from the barbeque may be a pointer. Amelie is clutching a pink balloon and wearing the pink version of the orange pool t-shirt.

And your point is?

These photos struck us because they have a peculiarity, they are the only photos we know of the McCann family as a family in Luz.

Yes, there are other photographs with all of them but these are poses. These photos from May 12 are of the family doing something. To try to clarify what we mean, all other photos are “news” photos while these are “paparazzi” ones even though they knew full well and accepted being photographed.

As if they wanted to be photographed coming from an activity OUTSIDE the Tapas area on May12.

In these photos Gerry seems to be wearing the identical outfit and sunglasses and the weather is obviously sunny.

So?

Of course, it’s possible that he wore this combination of clothes and sunglasses on an earlier occasion, as he seems to be wearing the same above the knee, olive-green shorts in the playground photo where he is playing with Madeleine, Sean and another girl, said to have been taken on May 2 by the family, or perhaps even earlier, according to others.

Yes, indeed. Or did you think the clothes fairy delivered new ones every day?

Also, tweeter, Jules..., spotted something interesting, that Amelie may have been wearing a reversible top. Pink on one side and orange on the other:

Possibly - but so what?

“Jules...@aFairDebate

Replying to @K9Truth, @ericson_niklas, and 2 others

Ameile's top is reversible too.. Pink on one side and orange on the other...

It’s not possible to see the shorts Amelie is wearing in the pool photo as her long t-shirt covers whatever she’s wearing.

We could agree that she’s wearing a reversible t-shirt. One of us bought very similar reversible t-shirts at the same time - around 2007, but I recall they were in pack of 2, of different colours, in one of 2 well known chain stores. Just ordinary t-shirts bought in a chain store or a supermarket.

We think Amelie appears with 2 different t-shirts whether or not if they are reversible because the one in the photo of Gerry holding her looks a lot shorter than the pool one. On reflection the sleeve trim would have to be in 2 different colours strips too so more fiddly for sewing to show each colour on the opposite side. Not that that really matters but in the pool photo it could be that Amelie was dressed in a larger t-shirt that belonged to Maddie.

We originally placed the photo of Gerry as having been taken around May 18. We based our estimation (and not certainty) on this photo:

However, here his shorts are longer, dark grey shorts.

A fact that had to be pointed out to you

It wasn’t the clothing that made us change our minds. The pointing out of not having been inside the Tapas are in Kate’s book, them wanting to be photographed coming from an outside activity on that day and the matching clothing on Gerry and Amelie suggest to us that May 12 is more likely as the date when photos #2 and #3 of the composite Last Photo were taken.

So basically, your fuckwitted theory IS based on what they were wearing. Thank you

The family changed their outfits into something equally and jarringly casual for the Mass later that afternoon when it is still sunny and people in the crowd are still wearing swimwear. It is these photos which we are so familiar with, rather that the photos of the family returning from the birthday barbeque with their minders. The smiles of the McCanns on leaving the church, greeted by a supportive crowd.

So they changed their clothes. And your point is?

Note, that we are not saying it’s certainty. A change of clothes is the easiest thing to do, and in the Tapas area there are toilets where that can be done with discretion and where they could have been waiting for them after having been put there by someone else.

Oh ffs

We could have been right when we said it was on May 18, as we may be right now saying that we think it was on May 12. We can be totally wrong and the photos were taken on different day.

You ARE totally wrong

Fact is we don’t know and unless we get a confession, we will never know. We have presented to our readers our reasons and leave it to each one to see if they agree or disagree with us.

But if they disagree you will attack them, fists flying

6. The Mr Anthony Bennett attack

As soon as we were able to understand that the content of the letter sent to the Portuguese’s Attorney General was about the theory of death before May 3, we dissociated ourselves from it as clearly as we could as our readers know.

We got the following request from one of our readers:

“Anonymous 18 Mar 2018, 15:50:00

I would be very interested to read about your conclusion on this whole CMoMM / MMRG stuff is about, Textusa? As I'm sure all your readers would be as well.

Judging by your cryptic comment in regards to it, then I feel that you also believe that what they are doing is nothing to do with trying to find the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.”

To this we replied extensively and in it we said this:

“- Why not quote names of digital photography experts? Why not, 11 years later and with much more recent technology, get the same (or other) experts to give a definitive and conclusive opinion – something we haven’t seen to this day – about the photo? This is not a minor crime but one that has grabbed the attention of the entire world and we are certain that these experts would welcome to see their names given visibility because of gained prestige and respect they would gain. Also, one would expect that a theory that wishes to “run past professionals from all walks of life, time and again” and that revolves around when was a photo allegedly taken or not would have as first priority the absolute certification by experts that photo in question as NOT photoshopped, as is claimed by many, we being among those sceptics.”

You seem to forget that this is Bennett you are talking about - he produces less evidence than you do

This, or something else which we are not aware of, sparked a fierce attack by Mr Anthony Bennett on our opinion about the last photo.

There, he summed up his opinion about our theory in 3 TwitLongs:

And for those of you who just took the time to read all that, here it is again

“1. Someone took a photo of Maddie on her own, by the pool, sometime between 28 April and 3 May. Textusa calls this PHOTO A.

2. It could have been Kate, but was probably one of the creche nannies.

3 That’s because the McCanns spent most of their time ‘swinging’.

4. After Madeleine was ‘gone’, the McCanns had to invent a photo which showed them spending family time together.

5 They would need to create a photo. They would have to choose a moment when it was very sunny.

6.The the shadows would have to match the shadows on Madeleine (which were very short, because the sun was very high when it was taken).

7.They waited and waited until it was sunny and warm enough.

8. Textusa says this was Thurs 17 May or Fri 18 May.

9. It was arranged that Gerry would go with Amelie for a special photo session at the Ocean Club. The time of the photos had to be very carefully chosen so that the shadow lengths on Gerry and Amelie.

10. Also the direction of the shadows must EXACTLY match those of Madeleine on the photo.

11. Amelie had to be seated just to the right of where Madeleine had been sitting Several photos of Amelie and Gerry sitting apart were taken.

12. Most of the photos were taken with Gerry wearing his sunglasses. But in one of them, he had his sunglasses clipped in his T-shirt pocket, hanging down vertically.

13 The photoshopping was done in a nearby studio.

14 The intention was for a new photo – to act as a ‘Baseline’ (background) photo, into which the photo of Madeleine could be photoshopped. Textusa calls this PHOTO B.

15 Textusa [his own words] “realised that with the angle (straight ahead) and height (almost the same as photographer) which Gerry is looking at the camera, the photographer had to be reflected in the lens”.

16. That…could only mean in the original photo it would be visible that the photographer wasn’t Kate.

17. In a studio, when doing the composition, it was realised that the photographer appeared in the reflection.

18. Another photo taken during that session by the pool where such a reflection didn’t appear was therefore needed.

19. The choice of photo was most likely conditioned with the photographer's reflection. But this photo didn’t.

20. That’s because the glasses were on his chest and the angle makes what is reflected to be beneath the horizon line of camera, thus the other side of the border.

21. So now the photographic experts [plural] altered the ‘Base’ photo (PHOTO B).

22. They did this by removing the sunglasses from the photo where Gerry was wearing them - and substituting the vertical sunglasses (Textusa calls this PHOTO C) from the photo where he had them dangling from his T-shirt. That is, PHOTO C was shopped on to PHOTO B.

23. They took the glasses from other image taken that afternoon where Gerry had them vertically on his shirt. So the reflection was of the opposite border of the pool from where he's sitting.

24. They cut the image by the middle of the frame of glasses from one picture.

25. Then they superimposed it over the image of the same pair of glasses from another picture.”

Of the above, we would like for Mr Bennett to show us, under the penalty of being a liar if he doesn’t, where have we said the following:

“6.The the shadows would have to match the shadows on Madeleine (which were very short, because the sun was very high when it was taken).”

“7.They waited and waited until it was sunny and warm enough.”

“10. Also the direction of the shadows must EXACTLY match those of Madeleine on the photo.”

“13 The photoshopping was done in a nearby studio.”

Of the above, we would like to clarify where Mr Bennett is incorrect:

“8. Textusa says this was Thurs 17 May or Fri 18 May.”

You and him should get together; save you spoiling another pairI am mostly going to skip over the next section as it is basically just she and Baldy arguing the toss

We have never said that it was on a certain date. We said we THOUGHT it could be. Again, if Mr Bennett doesn’t show where we have said that it WAS, then he accepts that he’s lying.

“9. It was arranged that Gerry would go with Amelie for a special photo session at the Ocean Club. The time of the photos had to be very carefully chosen so that the shadow lengths on Gerry and Amelie.”

It’s true that we said something similar to “It was arranged that Gerry would go with Amelie for a special photo session at the Ocean Club” but it’s absolutely false that we have ever said “the time of the photos had to be very carefully chosen so that the shadow lengths on Gerry and Amelie”.

“11. Amelie had to be seated just to the right of where Madeleine had been sitting Several photos of Amelie and Gerry sitting apart were taken.”

The first part is correct although we have never said it, Gerry and Amelie had to be sitting nearby where they knew Maddie had been photographed alone and it makes sense having them seated where they appear. However, we have never said “Several photos of Amelie and Gerry sitting apart were taken”. We couldn’t have, the photo shows how that statement is absurdly false. Mr Bennett, please prove that we have said this otherwise it just shows you’re simply inventing things.

“12. Most of the photos were taken with Gerry wearing his sunglasses. But in one of them, he had his sunglasses clipped in his T-shirt pocket, hanging down vertically.”

One falsehood and a correction to this statement. We have never said “Most of the photos were taken with Gerry wearing his sunglasses” because that is impossible to know, so again Mr Bennett, we ask for proof of having said it. What we have said is that we think the photo chosen to superimpose was one where Gerry was wearing his sunglasses. If he wore his sunglasses or not in many others, we don’t know as we don’t even know how many that many is.

The correction is on the second part of that statement. What we have said is that the sunglasses were hanging vertically from the neckline of Gerry’s t-shirt. The t-shirt worn on the photo does not have pockets. Inventing again.

“21. So now the photographic experts [plural] altered the ‘Base’ photo (PHOTO B).”

We have never said that there were “experts [plural]” with the emphasis on the plural. We imagine that more than one person was involved in this process but usually when it comes to deal with such a technical task, it’s usually one person who does the deed because once started, only s/he knows what s/he has altered and for what reasons.

Then there’s this statement which is true but we have never said it:

“11. Amelie had to be seated just to the right of where Madeleine had been sitting Several photos of Amelie and Gerry sitting apart were taken.”

Again, Mr Bennett, prove that we have said it.

But, and to be fair, if one withdraws the falsities it can be said that Mr Bennett makes a quite apt description of our theory. Quoting as much as we can from him:

Oh ffs - just ignore all this rambling bullshit

Someone took a photo of Maddie on her own, by the pool, sometime between 28 April and 3 May. Textusa calls this PHOTO #1. It could have been Kate, but was probably one of the creche nannies. That’s because the McCanns spent most of their time ‘swinging’. After Madeleine was ‘gone’, the McCanns had to invent a photo which showed them spending family time together. They would need to create a photo. They would have to choose a moment when it was very sunny. Textusa says this was on May 12. It was arranged that Gerry would go with Amelie for a special photo session at the Ocean Club. Amelie and Gerry had to be seated just to the right of where Madeleine had been sitting. The photo chosen to have PHOTO #1 superimposed on it was one taken with Gerry wearing his sunglasses. In another photo, he had his sunglasses clipped in his T-shirt neckline, hanging down vertically. The intention was for a new photo, the one chosen and where Gerry was wearing the sunglasses – to act as a ‘Baseline’ (background) photo, into which the photo of Madeleine could be photoshopped. Textusa calls this PHOTO #2. Textusa, “realised that with the angle (straight ahead) and height (almost the same as photographer) which Gerry is looking at the camera, the photographer had to be reflected in the lens”. That…could only mean in the original photo it would be visible that the photographer wasn’t Kate. In a studio, when doing the composition, it was realised that the photographer appeared in the reflection. Another photo taken during that session by the pool where such a reflection didn’t appear was therefore needed. The choice of photo was most likely conditioned with the photographer's reflection. But this photo didn’t. That’s because the glasses were on his chest and the angle makes what is reflected to be beneath the horizon line of camera, thus the other side of the border. Textusa calls this PHOTO #3. So now a photographic expert or experts altered Photo #2. He/they did this by removing the sunglasses from the photo where Gerry was wearing them - and substituting the vertical sunglasses (Textusa calls this PHOTO #3) from the photo where he had them dangling from his T-shirt. That is, PHOTO #3 was shopped on to PHOTO #2. They took the glasses from other image taken that afternoon where Gerry had them vertically on his shirt. So the reflection was of the opposite border of the pool from where he's sitting. They cut the image by the middle of the frame of glasses from one picture. Then they superimposed it over the image of the same pair of glasses from another picture. Textusa calls this PHOTO #2+#3.

Thank you, Mr Bennett.

Only forgot to say that PHOTO #1 was shopped into PHOTO #2+#3. If Mr Bennett. had said that we would say it was complete.

Very good! Mr Bennett, once falsehoods and YOUR nonsense about the weather, lighting and shadows is taken out of what you said, it shows quite clearly that you’ve fully understood our theory as your words explain it quite neatly.

If you wished to add in your personal inputs, you should have started with a “this is my opinion of Textusa’s theory about the Last Photo”. You didn’t, you implied that it was what we had said, so we will be waiting more in hope than expectation for your proof that you’re not a liar.

7. Textusa and Mr Anthony Bennett

Mr Bennett is used to saying whatever he likes in his forum and his supporters make certain that when he’s contradicted whoever commits such heresy is immediately banned from there.

Pretty much exactly what you do

In 2015, when we showed how very wrong he was when he accused the Portuguese justice system of being incompetent and corrupt, in our post “Dura Lex Sed Lex”, we crossed swords outside the forum but in an environment where he continued to be protected, the CMOMM Facebook group.

For example, how the policy of once you make others uncomfortable you’re out is equally implemented on FB as it is on the forum, I left that group because I found the deletion of comments made by Nuala Seaton asking Jill Havern if she had gotten authorisation from Prof. Farid to have his name revealed publicly to be unacceptable.

Stop rambling

As seen on this post, we think a very pertinent question to ask.

Jill Havern first replied that she had got authorisation from PeterMac to do so but did not clarify if PeterMac had got or not the authorisation in question. Because Nuala Seaton did not get a reply and apparently Jill Havern didn’t want to answer, those comments were deleted.

We are still curious to know if that authorisation was given. Has Prof. Farid given PeterMac his permission for his name to be used publicly in relation to the Last Photo? It’s a yes or no question.

But before I left, in the 2015 crossing of swords, as we had answered in our post “Dura Lex Sed Lex”, point by point and in detail all Mr Bennett had claimed made the Portuguese justice system incompetent and corrupt, I decided to put him 17 questions about what we think happened to Maddie.

My questions (I could have asked about more subjects but this was what occurred to me to ask at that moment) his replies and what I had say about them were the following (note, copying and pasting to maintain all intact, including the fact that I got the numbering wrong and missed #5):

Okay, this next section is all over the place like a madwoman's shite

“1.Did the Big Round Table exist? We don’t think it did.

So Textusa is posing the questions

YOUR REPLY: I read what you said about the ‘big round table’ a long time ago. I cannot recall now who said there was a big round table and why the issue was so important in your view. If you could kindly give me a link, I will happily go back and revisit what you say about this.

This seems to be baldy's bit

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: The issue is only important because it proves that the Tapas staff and guests listed on the days the Tapas dinners took place are lying. To me that seems important. Very important.

Yes, she really has written that much. About a table which, according to her, doesn't exist. Go figure.

2. Was there total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies)) or only there was no negligence because of “one Tapas in apartment”? Yes we think there was no negligence whatsoever

I think this is her speaking again. Or is it? Damn, I'm not sure any more

YOUR REPLY: I am not sure that I understand the question. The things that especially interest me in connection with your question are things like (a) the lack of photos of Madeleine on the holiday (b) the inability of the McCanns to supply any sample of Madeleine’s DNA and (c) the accounts that there was always one of the group away from the dinner table every evening, usually sick or unwell with something.

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: I will then explain the reason to my question. If there was no Big Round Table, then there were no Tapas dinners. There being no Tapas dinners there couldn’t be “was always one of the group away from the dinner table every evening, usually sick or unwell with something” because there would be no table to be away from.

The bit I have quoted from you is exactly what supports the “partial no negligence”. It states that those saying they were “sick and unwell” used that as an excuse because they weren’t neither sick nor unwell but staying in a designated apartment while looking after the kids while the rest ate and drank at Tapas.

The fact that there was no table nullifies this story. The fact that there was no table means they dined far away from the apartments. Either they abandoned their kids or someone was taking care of them. We say it was the latter: no negligence whatsoever.

I'll just clarify that for you:Evidence that the Tapas dinners happened - the statements of numerous diners, cooks, waiters, receptionists plus a documented record in the form of booking sheets. All in addition to the statements of the McCann group of course.Evidence that the Tapas dinner never happened - Textusa's claim that there was no big round tableEvidence that there was no big round table - absolutely nothing, just Textusa's claim that no table can seat nine people, it would collapse under the weight. Seriously. Now - back to Her Loonyship and Lord Baldybonce

3. Did the Tapas dinners take place? We don’t think they did.

YOUR REPLY: I am not sure. I would like to look at the evidence for and against. Where can I find it?

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: See answer to #1 and #4.

4. Are the Tapas Reservation Sheets genuine? We don’t think they are.

YOUR REPLY: I do not know. What evidence is there that they are forged?

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: Did not say forged because it’s completely unclear what they were for. What we say is that they were a creation meant to confirm that the Tapas dinners did take place.

6. Did Mrs Fenn hear Maddie cry for 75 minutes and why she only reported it over 3 months later? We think there was no crying episode.

YOUR REPLY: I agree with you that there is great doubt about whether Mrs Fenn’s story is true. She was a great friend of Jenny Murat and there seems to be to be a great deal of mystery about Murat and all those connected with him. Murat himself I believe claimed on one occasion that Mrs Fenn ‘phoned him about the crying episode. In my view, that creates added suspicion about Mrs Fenn’s; story. And I think she retracted, in front of the media, what she had said in her statement anyway.

Just a little interjection here - the above is bollocks and just another episode in Baldy's harassment of Murat. There is no evidence that Jenny Murat and Mrs Fenn were great friends and Murat never made any claim about Mrs Fenn phoning him about the crying incident. Baldy knows this, so it's just a big fat lie, I'm afraid. Also, Mrs Fenn never retracted her statement, another lieOkay - continue

7. Is Derek Flack lying about Pimpleman? We think he was.

YOUR REPLY: Probably.

8. Is TS lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

YOUR REPLY: Probably.

9. Is JW lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

YOUR REPLY: Probably.

10. Were there Quiz Nights? We don’t think there were.

YOUR REPLY: I think there may have been a Quiz Night. I am happy to look at any evidence that there wasn’t, if you would kindly send me a link.

11. Were there watersports? We don’t think there were.

YOUR REPLY: I think there may have been. One of the reasons I say this is because there are I think a couple of pictures of Gerry McCann and another man in wet suits on the beach in Praia da Luz amongst the grainy balc-and-white images on the computer disks handed to the PJ by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on 9 May 2007

12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.

YOUR REPLY: I have read about this but cannot now recollect the details. I am unsure how important this issue is

13. Why did PJ use the word “swing” to search Murat’s and Malinka’s computers? Because PJ knew swinging was going on.

(BTW it was a poster in the JH forum who pointed us this as can be seen in the post linked)

YOUR REPLY: I didn’t know that the PJ used the word ‘swing’. Is that in the original Portuguese, or is it an English translation somewhere of a Portuguese word. What was the Portuguese word used? IIRC the PJ searched these two computers for these 3 specific reasons:

2. An anonymous lady ‘phoned the PJ and said explicitly that there were child sexual abuse images on his computer, and

3. The PJ knew very well that Murat and Malinka were close friends.

I think later there was a story that Malinka was having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl and her mother.

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: I would ask you to refrain from using the word “perverted” freely, a term you have at least once used to qualify my theory by the way when requesting it to be immediately withdrawn from the forum.

The word “pervert” is subjective and judgemental. Maybe it’s exactly because of the widespread harsh use of very subjective and judgemental wording in the UK when it comes to describing other people’s “different” forms of sexuality the reason why we are where we are today in this case: a bunch of people afraid of what subjective and judgemental words will be said of them.

You clearly know nothing of UK culture and your Swinging claims have been utterly and thoroughly destroyed

Manga, which you seem to call a perversion is totally acceptable in Japan. I personally find it very distasteful and nearing the paedophilia (only it isn’t). Not wanting to dwell much on the subject, schoolgirl and nurse role-playing are very common fantasies.

1. The computers were cleared by PJ of any illegal material. PJ like us, saw the Manga images and did not consider them illegal. Do you consider PJ equally perverted).

2. That anonymous call was made in a context of finger-pointing when a patsy was urgently needed, as we have explained in our post:

16. Is Stephen Carpenter lying about almost all he says? We think he was.

YOUR REPLY: I have written a long article pointing out that Robert Murat gave two different reasons for his having become a a translator. One of those reasons was the Stephen Carpenter account of how he and Murat had a conversation over the hedge on Friday morning. To me, neither Carpenter’s version of that event, nor Murat’s, had the ring of truth about them.

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: It begs the question, why would Carpenter (who happens to also be named in the Tapas reservation sheets) a guest who supposedly knows neither the McCanns nor Murat go out on a limb for them?

17. Is Raj Balu lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

YOUR REPLY: IIRC Balu and Berry were both connected with the Jensen/Wiltshire sisters in some way. Then Jensen/Wiltshire sisters featured in a British mainstream press story that was preceded by them being interviewed by Metodo 3 man Julian Peribanez and by money-laundering expert Gary Hagland, who was also employed, like Metodo 3, by Brian Kennedy. If all the above is correct, and it’s some time since I visited this issue, then I would view with caution anything that he four of them said about events in Praia da Luz. IIRC a cot may have been asked for by them but not for the reason they gave. But I would have to revisit the story to give you a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’.

More generally I take the view that the statements by all witnesses in this most mysterious of cases, including those of the Smiths, need to be carefully analysed to see if the witnesses are witnesses of truth - or not.

WHAT I HAD TO SAY: Could you please clarify the “some way” in which Balu and Berry may be connected to the Jensen/Wiltshire sisters?

My questions had only to do with their statement.

18. Is Neil Berry lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

YOUR REPLY: See above.”

One note, replying “Probably” is the same as saying nothing.

We could have added other things, like adding a link to our post “Super-Kid” to show the relevance of Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover as Mr Bennett was “unsure how important this issue is”.

Mr Bennett then thanked me, said he was going to read the information I had just given him and would come back to us as soon as he could. We’re in 2018 and still waiting.

He is probably still reading the 12 interminable posts you linked to, supposedly containing evidence that there was no big round table

We could not help notice, and find it strange, the amazing ignorance shown then by Mr Bennett about what we have written in our blog during years, when he has quoted us (and even complimented us!) and seen us quoted with some frequency in the CMOMM Forum.

Most people don't read your garbage. I only do so as a public service.

We also must say that we found it surprising Mr Bennett executed this attack on Twitter instead of in the CMOMM Forum, from where it’s usual for him to execute his attacks.

The only reason we can find is because of the huge blow that Gemma O’Doherty’s article represented to his credibility when it shattered completely his absurd Robert Murat/Martin Smith theories, we believe it was decided within his Forum to “side-line” him away from this article. Keep his name out of it and by doing so let it have the credibility that PeterMac and Paulo Reis were supposed to give.

I don't remember Gemma supporting your Swinging hypothesis, Maria. What did that do to your 'credibility'? (Hint - you never had any)

However, it would be totally out of character for Mr Bennett to be very far from the steering wheel on anything originating from that forum, so we don’t think he is side-lined, all of it being an act.

8. Conclusion

Gerry returned to the UK very briefly on Monday May 21, landing at East Midlands airport in the early hours of the morning, spending 24 hours apart from the family, returning on May 22, as per BBC News article published Monday, 21 May 2007 “Madeleine’s father returns to UK”. The Pool Photo was made available to the press on May 24 but was not amongst the photos handed to the PJ by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on May 9th.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

It does not appear in the greyscale photos, but more importantly, the last known photograph of Madeleine McCann does not appear in Kate’s book, although the description of the clothes Madeleine was wearing including where they were purchased, is given in great detail on page 65.

So?

If, as we believe, the photo was intended to show a smiling Madeleine in her final hours before she went missing, why was it not included in Kate’s book to prove she was still alive on that day? Would that not have been the perfect place to make that clear to the world in the perpetuity of a book, rather than in a newspaper with a limited reading life?

And if your theory is right, that it was to show Madeleine in happier, family times, why isn't it there?

Questions raised on blogs and forums, before we even began to take an interest in this photo, showed that questions were being asked about the possibility it was photo-shopped- the missing shadows, the odd composition of the subjects in relation to each other, the strange dark mark on Madeleine’s neck…

All of which was bollocks. Do continue....

By the time Kate wrote her book in 2011, she may have decided that it was no longer advisable to draw any further attention to the photograph.

If we are proved to be wrong by the evidence of the 2 experts referenced in this case and Hany Farid agrees that the reflection seen in Gerry’s sunglasses can be explained by the laws of physics, then we will accept that with good grace.

You have been proven wrong on many occasions. You have accepted it with the good grace of someone handed a carrier bag full of dog turds.

However, it has not yet been confirmed whether our presumptions about the experts are correct and whether they have given detailed rather than “first glance” assessments.

We are also waiting to see if either of them is prepared to put names to their professional opinions in the public domain. To use an expression we have used previously – More in hope than expectation.

Before demanding that others produce professional-standard evidence in the public domain, why don't you address the many calls for you to produce any evidence to support any of your drooling, lunatic claims? And by that I don't mean endlessly repeating the words ''Adult Pool'' or bleating on about balconies and esplanades